"We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday.
Here are the ten options the Prime Minister is likely reviewing:
1. Preemptively Remove Michaëlle Jean
This is the true nuclear option for Harper: a preemptive strike against Jean to remove her from office, and replace her with a governor-general sympathetic to the argument that the people should decide in an election.
The roots of this option are found in the last major constitutional crisis in a British Parliamentary democracy, the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.
I'll let you review all the background in this excellent Wikipedia article, but the key passage for our purposes is this:
"(Governor-General) Kerr was unwilling to warn (Prime Minister) Whitlam that he was contemplating dismissing him, fearing that Whitlam's reaction would be to advise Elizabeth II, the Queen of Australia, to remove him as Governor-General instead - advice the Queen would be compelled by convention to follow. Though this might appear to be an unlikely proposition, it was constitutionally possible, and in the peculiar circumstances of the crisis could not have been ruled out."
Canadian constitutional scholar and former Liberal MP Ted McWhinney writes on its application to Canada in his excellent book, The Governor-General and the Prime Ministers: The Making and Unmaking of Governments. He concluded that if the PM requested the governor-general's dismissal:
"With the Queen's role reduced to a formal ratifying of the choice of governor general made by the prime minister, the Queen would surely have had to take the prime ministers 'advice' without demur. That [this] hypothesis could be seriously advanced by a reputable scholar suggests the need for further work and refinement on the constitutional checks and balances to govern the office of governor general, including the selection, continuance in office and replacement of the governor general."
So, the Governor-General has the authority to dismiss the Prime Minister BUT the Prime Minister may have the authority to dismiss the Governor-General first by requesting the Queen dismiss her.
Mr. Harper could advise the Queen that Ms. Jean should be removed from office, perhaps noting her past dalliance with Quebec separatism as grounds. He would then be free to appoint someone who would agree to call an election or prorogue rather than call upon Mr. Dion to form a Ministry.
The difference is critical here. In Australia, the issue was the Senate refusing to pass supply. Prime Minister Whitlam had a majority in the lower house, which is normally supreme in matters of confidence. But PM Harper does not have a majority in the Commons, has not tested the will of Parliament and an alternative administration enjoys a majority of support.
To call this option risky is a grave understatement. Not only would it threaten the role of the monarchy in Canada, but parliamentary supremacy back to the Magna Carta would be called into question.
2. Reschedule the Vote Again
The Government House Leader could move the date of the opposition motion back, in essence preventing any votes on matters of confidence indefinitely.
The challenge here would be the absurdity of the Commons paralyzed by debate on amendments to every motion attempting to force a confidence matter.
It would likely prove impossible for the Governor-General to not intervene and summon the PM to demonstrate confidence in the Commons.
3. Appoint opposition MPs to the Senate
This option has received some attention, but is unlikely to work.
In theory, the PM could stimulate the resignation of opposition MPs with the lure of appointments to the Senate, ambassadorial posts or other plums.
However, the Prime Minister's powers of appointment are contingent on having the confidence of the House.
